ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017119
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Warehouse Operative | Logistics Company |
Representatives | JJ Fitzgerald , Solicitor | Kate Hughes, Solicitor |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00022085-001 | 22/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00022085-002 | 22/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00022085-003 | 22/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00022085-004 | 22/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 -2015,and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and Section 11 of the Minimum notice and Terms of employment Act 1973,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00022085-001 The Complainant was summarily dismissed without notice on 28th August 2018 and is due a payment in lieu of minimum notice in accordance with the Act and his service with the company. CA-00022085-002 The Complainant never received written terms of conditions of employment. CA-00022085-003 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2000 to 2018 and the company had changed hands during this period. With the exception of a few minor transgressions, his employment was uneventful until 2018 when he was told there was no future for him in the company and he was escorted off the premises. He was shocked as he had not been warned, had not been given a hearing, was not provided with proper reasons for dismissal and was not given the right to appeal. CA-00022085-004 The Complainant seeks a redundancy payment since he had 18 years with the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00022085-001 The Complainant was given one week’s notice pay. CA-00022085-002 The Complainant received written terms of conditions of employment at the start of his employment. CA-00022085-003 The Complainant was dismissed for incapacity to perform the work he was employed to do. Performance reviews show that he was moved multiple times to see if he could work out in various areas, all to no avail. His performance was well below par and he was also subject to verbal warnings regarding safety issues. He has had various other transgressions, such a miss-picks and clocking in transgressions. The Respondent had no option but to dismiss in circumstances where the Complainant was unable to perform the tasks allotted to him. CA-00022085-004 The Complainant was replaced so is not entitled to redundancy. |
Decision:
CA-00022085-001
The Complainant received one week’s notice pay. Having over 18 years service, he was entitled to 8 weeks’ notice. I find his complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,604.
CA-00022085-002
The Complainant received written terms of conditions of employment. I do not find his complaint to be well founded.
CA-00022085-003
The Complainant was dismissed for failing to meet the standards of performance required by the Respondent. I found no evidence of natural justice or fair procedures being afforded to him in the situation where he was not given a hearing, was not given the right to attend a meeting, accompanied by a representative, was not given a letter of dismissal and was not afforded the right of appeal. In the circumstances, I find his complaint that he was unfairly dismissed to be well founded. I consider that the appropriate form of redress is compensation and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €17,856 being the equivalent of 12 months pay.
CA-00022085-004
The Complainant seeks a redundancy payment since he had 18 years with the Respondent. As found above, as he was unfairly dismissed and he was replaced in his job, the issue of a redundancy payment does not apply. I do not find his complaint to be well founded.
Dated: 7th August 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham